You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Emile comments on Value evolution - Less Wrong Discussion

14 Post author: PhilGoetz 08 December 2011 11:47PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (111)
Tags: cev values ethics future

Comments (111)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Emile 11 December 2011 06:51:41PM 3 points [-]

I argue that the amount of effort this writer and others put into bad pro-slavery arguments requires explanation. I further argue that they made this effort to defend slavery or the slave-owning tribe; and that, had everyone consciously rejected such garbage, slavery would have ended quickly.

I don't disagree with that, but I think that a lot of political advocacy on all kinds of topics requires bad arguments on both sides, so I don't find the mere existence of bad arguments very heavy evidence (all that requires is a stupid audience, and God knows those haven't been rare through history). I don't have any reason to believe that pro-slavery arguments have been extraordinarily bad beyond the standard of political advocacy, since I except that it's easier to find the best abolitionist arguments, and the worst pro-slavery ones.

There are very likely pro-slavery works that are much more solid than the one you linked, and possibly some that are more solid than Uncle Tom's Cabin (which wasn't the most solid abolitionist work, merely the most popular one). I haven't read this book, but someone said about it:

I have read the Adams "southside view of slavery", but a small part of me wishes I hadn't. That along with Cannibals All and Carlyle are books you really can't unread. It's one thing to be able to make legalistic arguments for the south or to point out northern perfidiousness; it's quite another to have a fairly sound defense of slavery (both theoretical and actual) in your head.

Comment author: hairyfigment 11 December 2011 07:53:32PM *  1 point [-]

Ah good, I wondered if selection bias led me to miss evidence. But a quick look at this text makes it look pretty bad.

The author says near the start of Chapter IV:

Apart from the question of slavery, it was easy to see that to keep such a part of the population out of the streets after a reasonable hour at night, preventing their unrestrained, promiscuous roving, is a great protection to them, as well as to the public peace.

As written this seems hard to disprove. But this historian's note tells us:

while death rates fell for those who survived their first year, it remained about twice the white rate. As a result of high infant and child mortality, the average life expectancy of a slave at birth was just 21 or 22 years, compared to 40 to 43 years for whites.

It appears that the high infant and child death rate was at least partly a result of a diet lacking sufficient protein, thiamine, niacin, calcium, magnesium, and vitamin D. As a result, slave children often suffered from night blindness, abdominal swellings, swollen muscles, bowed legs, skin lesions, and convulsions.

Wikipedia tells us that in 2003:

the gap in life expectancy between American whites (78.0) and blacks (72.8) had decreased to 5.2 years, reflecting a long term trend of this phenomenon.

And I don't see a lot of free black people, in any time, volunteering for the restrictions on movement which that guy praises. (ETA: I was going to qualify that, but apparently the media sees an active-duty military curfew as unusual.) His account of happy slaves, especially in church, likewise seems dubious -- we know that slaves often interpreted Christianity as a promise of freedom.

Can you point to some specific part of the Adams book which doesn't suck?

Comment author: Emile 11 December 2011 09:40:53PM 1 point [-]

Nope, I haven't read it - I just skimmed it a bit after my last post.

I don't really see the logical relationship between the quote you give from the book (an argument about the benefits of keeping those scary black people locked up) and the historian's note, beyond the fact that one is an argument in favor of slavery, and one is an argument against.

I don't think a detailed judgement of that book is the best use of either of us's time, I'm just giving the reasons for my position (slavery probably isn't just a question of false beliefs), I don't expect much utility from having a clear picture of American slavery (cf value of information and all that).

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit